Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Yeah, i went and re-read the Hobbit for the first time in like 25 years after I watched the trilogies and was just floored by how they managed to take a book that short and make 9 hours of movie out of it.
I mean sure - it was 90% worthless fluff, but you have to almost be impressed by the audacity of it.
Which sucked because Martin Freeman as Bilbo should've been great. And the story of The Hobbit is good. But god almighty did they gack that thing.
But I'm inclined to agree with you - A Gollum-centric movie isn't the direction I'd go. Tolkien built an entire universe and mythology (at least a massive outline of one) in The Silmarillion; that's really the direction this should've gone.
I mean you look into stuff like Gandalf as a sort of quasi-god and that whole Valar thing with Morgoth and how that all interplays with Middle Earth - it may end up too complicated to bring to film, but if you wanted to make another trilogy and do it well, there's a TON of source material there to flesh out that would actually really complement the series nicely and could even play into the Rings of Power series also.
|
The Hobbit trilogy was doomed from the start despite Jackson's involvement and a product of trying to cash in on the coattails of the LOTR trilogy. Now maybe they were trying to appeal to an audience that never read the books.
There's just no way to take The Hobbit book which was the shortest of all the main books (not counting offshoots like Beren and Luthien) was going to last without gross amounts of fluff and it showed. I know that it turned me off as well as a lot of other fans because of this.
Now I would love a Silmarillion trilogy as I believe there is more than enough source material to support it. I get that it can be a harder read for many (I personally love it), but I also think that it would translate much better on screen.